Avoid stigmatisation for voluntary virus testing

As the Covid-19 pandemic continues to sweep across the world and this week hit 1.4 million cases, citizens from all over the planet turn to their governments to stem the tide of death and economic destruction. In comparing nations, mass testing is shown to be one of the critical factors in taming the virus' spread.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in mobilised factories across his country to churn out Covid-19 testing kits, implemented mobile technology to notify citizens of nearby cases and testing options, fostered transparent news conferences building a sense of duty among citizens and trust in government, and conducted a staggering 300,000 tests in the first six weeks of the pandemic, all with no lockdowns and focused on self-isolating rather than forced quarantine in government facilities.

In contrast, the United States' first positive case came on the same day as South Korea. American President Donald Trump initially downplayed the severity of the pandemic, botched initial testing implementation, demonised transparency, but also did not implement lockdowns and similarly focused instead on self-isolating instead of quarantine in government facilities. The difference in approach has led to dramatically 600 percent better South Korean outcomes with 0.02 percent infected compared with 0.12 percent of the American population.

Here in Kenya, both President Uhuru Kenyatta and Health Secretary Mutahi Kagwe have received largely positive commendations for their forthright, information-filled, and compassionate public statements, though with some notable detractors. Yet the important issue remains: does the Government of Kenya's response to the pandemic aid or inhibit the compliance of the citizenry.

Kenya currently engages in many solid helpful government activities during this time including reallocating budgets, constant updates, increased testing capacity, destigmatising campaigns, national and county government collaboration, and extensive contact tracing of infected persons. However, some decisions, not including the curfew or lockdowns, prove more controversial. The case of a bus from Mombasa to Nakuru that inadvertently carried an infected passenger sent shockwaves. Reports indicate that fellow passengers who may have been unwittingly exposed to the virus must present themselves to authorities for mandatory quarantine in government facilities or face prosecution and jail. Also, anyone testing positive for Covid-19 is taken to government facilities and those in close proximity to those proven to be infected taken to government isolation areas.

Such issues raise a common question in occupational psychology. Which is more effective to gain legislative or regulatory compliance: affirmative or negative basis of threats? Researcher Peter May explores the difference between affirmative motivations of compliance that emanate from good intentions and a sense of obligation to comply and negative motivations, on the other hand, that stem from anxiety over consequences if discovered to have violated the regulatory requirements. The research found that in business situations, affirmative motivations prove stronger than the negative alternative.

Unfortunately, in our Kenyan Covid-19 battle, we employ a mixed approach with more negative motivations for infected or traced contacts with affirmative motivations utilised for the general public.

We hold one of the most negative motivation enforcements for infected or traced contacts in the world by disallowing their self-isolation with checks and requiring, instead, forced quarantine in government facilities.